The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) It is merely a delivery of money to a person who misunderstanding the facts to help the Defendant, and it does not mean that the Defendant defrauded the money by deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion in detail by providing a detailed statement on the determination of the Defendant’s 15 conduct in the second half of the judgment of the lower court, which was admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court. However, the lower court, based on these evidence, led to the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, i.e., the victim: (a) expressed that the Defendant would be repaid at a rapid time whenever the Defendant borrows money.

The defendant consistently makes a statement, and the purport of the same is that he/she shall return his/her business to his/her original state, "to repay the business in his/her original state," "to repay the money promptly," and "to pay the money immediately." As such, the defendant's promise to repay the money to the early date and borrowed money from the damaged party, as alleged by the defendant, cannot be deemed to have given money to the injured party for the purpose of aiding and abetting the defendant without compensation. ② According to the defendant's statement, the defendant's statement stated to the purport that "to pay money to the damaged party if he/she fully borrows the money from the damaged party about 53 million won in 201." The defendant's statement to the effect that "to pay money to the damaged party if he/she fully borrows the money from the damaged party's exercise of special property," and the above exercise's profit is not sufficient, thereby maintaining the present situation before he/she borrows money from the damaged party.